WesWorld

c

1. It is bigger than 8,000t. Hence it is a CA.

2. 100mm quads are a bad idea. Slow RoF and turning/elevation.

3. Otherwise ok

Personally I'd avoid quads for light guns on a few accounts:

-Slower rate of fire

-Slower rate of training

-The 6" quad might require a wider beam for the ship

-Half your battery vulnerable to anything that can penetrate 4". At typical cruiser combat ranges, that could be destroyer weapons.

-Can't split fire up much

The ship is otherwise a solid design, I just wouldn't go with that layout of weapons

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
1. It is bigger than 8,000t. Hence it is a CA.

This is assuming that Iberia actually lets the other Contracting Powers know of the slight excess tonnage. They won't be able to actually see it, unless Iberia explicitly informs them of it, and the excess is small enough that they most likely will not even suspect it.

Exactly. If I build them they will be declared at 7999.95 t ;-)

I believe in following the historical practice of not taking the contract figures too seriously. Japan built 13 kt heavy cruisers and while there was suspicion nobody ever challenged them AFAIK.

IMHO 10 excess are not even noticeable.

cheers

Bernhard

does anybody have some articles I could have a look at about the slow ROF of quads? AFAIK the only probs the french had with the mid calibre DP quads on S+D as well as Richelieu were of mechanical nature (which, being German I blame on French engineering) rather than speed of turning or ROF. Also please note that in 1924 the Armada treats the 100 mm guns as secondary armament, not yet DP. The point about armour is well taken - back to the drawing board.

B

c